My birthday weekend was wonderful and the fact that two dear friends shared their anniversary makes the it even more so (congratulations Cory and Elbert, may you have many more). Friday night Cory and Elbert took me to dinner at Cafe Bleu where we were joined by Heather for food, wine, and conversation (I'll critique the restaurant and wine on my other blog). My beau was unable to join but I was soon with him for the rest of the night where he presented me with a candle-topped carrot cake and sang "Happy Birthday" to me.
The next morning we bucked the trend of newly-found austerity, picked up our friend Sarah, and met Cory, Elbert, and Heather at Orfila Winery to start a day of wine tasting (I'll review the wines at the other blog). A stretch limo picked us up for a ride to and around Temecula to spend the day at various wineries (again, see other blog for details). After a day of drinking, er, tasting and laughing we had dinner at Buca di Beppo in Mira Mesa where we were joined by Gabe and filled out the evening with good food and embarrassment for your truly as I had to stand on a chair holding a candelabra while the place sang "Happy Birthday". After dropping Sarah off it was time for my beau and I to head home and relax (being the old men that we are).
Sunday was sunny and relaxing. After breakfast at Shades we saw Gran Torino where I had a good cry, then it was off to Hillcrest for lunch, walking around, and relaxing. Cory and Elbert celebrated their anniversary Sunday so we pretty much left them alone, content to spend our time together and talking about the future.
So thanks to everyone who made the weekend special for me. You will never truly know how much such friendship is valued.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
46
46 is the largest even integer that can't be expressed as a sum of two abundant numbers.
46 is the 13th semiprime.
There are 46 human chromosomes.
The code for international direct dial phone calls to Sweden (ewwww... don't like this one).
Code 46 was a pretty bad cyperpunkish movie.
On this day, January 30, someone whose name is firmly entrenched in the annals of American history was born. A man whose name is being invoked more and more frequently in the media and the halls of power. Depending on your political persuasion it is a name spoke in deep reverence or with derision, made to be either the right hand of God or the left buttock of Lucifer. Yes ladies and gentlemen I am speaking of....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Oh, yeah, today's my birthday too (sheesh, this year I am connect to both FDR * AND * Sweden, God help me).
46 is the 13th semiprime.
There are 46 human chromosomes.
The code for international direct dial phone calls to Sweden (ewwww... don't like this one).
Code 46 was a pretty bad cyperpunkish movie.
On this day, January 30, someone whose name is firmly entrenched in the annals of American history was born. A man whose name is being invoked more and more frequently in the media and the halls of power. Depending on your political persuasion it is a name spoke in deep reverence or with derision, made to be either the right hand of God or the left buttock of Lucifer. Yes ladies and gentlemen I am speaking of....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Oh, yeah, today's my birthday too (sheesh, this year I am connect to both FDR * AND * Sweden, God help me).
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Sadly, I Don't Think Obama Understands This
I'm not Catholic but I have to say that Catholicvote.com has some powerful videos over this message. On another note, this will not be shown during the Super Bowl. Why do I say this? Catholicvote.com offered to buy time to play this "commercial" but it was rejected. Three words to this group... "Don't give up".
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
President Obortion
Well, we can't say we weren't expecting it but I was shocked that President Obama made undoing the "Mexico City Policy" allowing funding to organizations that provide abortions (link) such a high priority. The policy, implemented by Reagan, repealed by Clinton and reestablished by Bush has again been overturned by Obama within three days of being sworn in as president. Apparently a "woman's right to choose" is of greater importance than almost anything else going on at the moment. Obama has always supported abortion rights regardless of the situation and reason. For such a supposedly smart man he just doesn't get it. I'm curious how his actions aren't political (as he claims in his own comments about his action) and it will be interesting to see how his supporters will spin this action as being "pro-family" when the end result is to allow elimination of a family member.
The discussion about abortion is often heated and more knee-jerk than thoughtful. Recently I was talking to a highly educated person who actually made the statement that an embryo was no different than any other mass of tissue such as skin cells or a tumor (shocking but that was what was said). It was a bit sad that I had to point out that one major difference was you could not take a skin sample, implant it in a uterus and nine months later have a baby emerge.
Modern science is showing how viability can be pushed back closer and closer to the time of conception. For someone who claims to want to put science back in the place it belongs, I wish President Obama would pay attention to the science he supposedly reveres.
The discussion about abortion is often heated and more knee-jerk than thoughtful. Recently I was talking to a highly educated person who actually made the statement that an embryo was no different than any other mass of tissue such as skin cells or a tumor (shocking but that was what was said). It was a bit sad that I had to point out that one major difference was you could not take a skin sample, implant it in a uterus and nine months later have a baby emerge.
Modern science is showing how viability can be pushed back closer and closer to the time of conception. For someone who claims to want to put science back in the place it belongs, I wish President Obama would pay attention to the science he supposedly reveres.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's Speech
I have to say, I am a bit disappointed. For someone who is proclaimed to be one of the great orators of his age I found it a bit flat, but then again I actually listened to the words. Unlike the crowds who gazed with rapture at President Obama, I listened, analyzed, weighed the words.
I firmly agree with him on the idea of personal responsibility, that many of our problems today are "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices". Sadly he focused a bit too much on "greed" and not not enough of the failure to make hard choices. Sorry, but no one had a gun held to their head and forced to sign loan papers when they knew darn good and well that (1) the markets do NOT always go up and (2) they couldn't make the payments at the end of the teaser rate period. Obama gives an interesting list of problems but fails to actually tie them to anything. For example, he said "our schools fail too many", but no tie back to his responsibility theme. Mr. President, why do "our schools fail too many"? Please, don't tell me it's money because if we are both honest with each other we know it isn't. How about parents not making the hard choice of doing without to be more involved with the education of their children?
I found this interesting: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." Now this is interesting, since it has been his side of the aisle that has spat the more vitriolic of statements. Of course, one moment of fun for yours truly was Obama's butting heads with Pelosi and Reid. If he continues to do this he will earn much more of my support, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. How he handles their tunnel vision of war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney will go far in how I view the man.
This one sent chills down my spine, the idea of "the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." First of all, there is no such promise of all being equal unless you want to talk soteriology, yet that is not what Obama meant here. We are NOT all equal. We each have different skills, different inclinations, different abilities. The message he is sending is a bit muddled.
I found this one of the better lines in the speech: "Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." The question is, what will the Obama administration do to help such people?
This statement puzzled me: "We will restore science to its rightful place". What "rightful place" is that? When was science removed from whatever that "rightful place" is? Such statements to me sound like the silly leftist "fair share" statement when it comes to taxation. Who gets to make such definitions?
I agree with this statement up to a point: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." If he stopped at the hyphen I would have liked it more, but Obama says that government should meddle in the lives of people. Where is the responsibility of the individual? Given that most people seem to think that Social Security is "broken" and doesn't work, will he end it? He said earlier that public education has failed, will that end as well?
I find it interesting that Obama says "know that America is a friend of each nation". Really? What about countries who deem us as "the great Satan" (and I'm not just talking about the French here). How far does that idea of "friend" go?
I'm not sure how much that goes with his much, much better statement "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." I find that Obama, in trying to be the world's "good guy", a sorta global president, he is pledging far too much outside the U.S. before we really clean up our own house (read the three paragraphs or so following the above quotes).
I think what I have the most problem with is the muddled message this sends to those who pay attention to what he says. But, as I said to a co-worker this morning, unlike the rabid liberals I will NOT say that Obama is not my president. He is, and when he and I agree I will support him to the utmost of my ability. Where we disagree I will speak out to any who will listen. This, I think, is the real duty of a patriotic American. So now, it's time to see what he will do. Time for talk and speeches is over, now is the time for action.
God bless America.
I firmly agree with him on the idea of personal responsibility, that many of our problems today are "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices". Sadly he focused a bit too much on "greed" and not not enough of the failure to make hard choices. Sorry, but no one had a gun held to their head and forced to sign loan papers when they knew darn good and well that (1) the markets do NOT always go up and (2) they couldn't make the payments at the end of the teaser rate period. Obama gives an interesting list of problems but fails to actually tie them to anything. For example, he said "our schools fail too many", but no tie back to his responsibility theme. Mr. President, why do "our schools fail too many"? Please, don't tell me it's money because if we are both honest with each other we know it isn't. How about parents not making the hard choice of doing without to be more involved with the education of their children?
I found this interesting: "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." Now this is interesting, since it has been his side of the aisle that has spat the more vitriolic of statements. Of course, one moment of fun for yours truly was Obama's butting heads with Pelosi and Reid. If he continues to do this he will earn much more of my support, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. How he handles their tunnel vision of war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney will go far in how I view the man.
This one sent chills down my spine, the idea of "the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." First of all, there is no such promise of all being equal unless you want to talk soteriology, yet that is not what Obama meant here. We are NOT all equal. We each have different skills, different inclinations, different abilities. The message he is sending is a bit muddled.
I found this one of the better lines in the speech: "Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." The question is, what will the Obama administration do to help such people?
This statement puzzled me: "We will restore science to its rightful place". What "rightful place" is that? When was science removed from whatever that "rightful place" is? Such statements to me sound like the silly leftist "fair share" statement when it comes to taxation. Who gets to make such definitions?
I agree with this statement up to a point: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." If he stopped at the hyphen I would have liked it more, but Obama says that government should meddle in the lives of people. Where is the responsibility of the individual? Given that most people seem to think that Social Security is "broken" and doesn't work, will he end it? He said earlier that public education has failed, will that end as well?
I find it interesting that Obama says "know that America is a friend of each nation". Really? What about countries who deem us as "the great Satan" (and I'm not just talking about the French here). How far does that idea of "friend" go?
I'm not sure how much that goes with his much, much better statement "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." I find that Obama, in trying to be the world's "good guy", a sorta global president, he is pledging far too much outside the U.S. before we really clean up our own house (read the three paragraphs or so following the above quotes).
I think what I have the most problem with is the muddled message this sends to those who pay attention to what he says. But, as I said to a co-worker this morning, unlike the rabid liberals I will NOT say that Obama is not my president. He is, and when he and I agree I will support him to the utmost of my ability. Where we disagree I will speak out to any who will listen. This, I think, is the real duty of a patriotic American. So now, it's time to see what he will do. Time for talk and speeches is over, now is the time for action.
God bless America.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Obama's Magic Numbers
Now while I have a few things to quibble about with Obama's economic plan, one thing I find fascinating is how over the matter of a couple of weeks the purported number of jobs it would create has jumped from 2.5 million to 3 million to 4.1 million. Wow! Of course, these numbers come from his own economic council. How nice it would be to live in a world where the president could miraculously create jobs at this rate. Of course, what else can we expect from this one?
Still, one hopes for the best. I just wish he and his followers didn't try to make it out like his bowel movements produce gold. That makes him and his no better than the current fanatics in power.
Still, one hopes for the best. I just wish he and his followers didn't try to make it out like his bowel movements produce gold. That makes him and his no better than the current fanatics in power.
Monday, January 05, 2009
A Tail Of Two Rings
You may have noticed that the last few weeks I have been wearing two rings, one on the left hand and one on the right hand. The ring on the left hand is the ring that my beau gave me to "seal the deal" as he likes to put it. The one on my right hand is my father's high school ring. When I was home for Thanksgiving he gave that ring to me. Dad didn't go to college, but he wanted me to have his academic ring. That ring just fits on my right hand. Now ever time I look at my hands I see symbols of the two men who love me unconditionally. Now when I look my hands I cannot help but smile and feel loved.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
An Andy Rooney Moment
Did you ever wonder why the good guys in sci-fi movies have blue lights while bad guys tend to have green lights?
Painless Giving
When I travel I tend to fly American Airlines and have found a way to give painlessly every time I do so I thought I would pass it on. Here is the information from The Center in San Diego:
Flying somewhere?
Every time you book a ticket with American Airlines, remember to take The Center with you. When making your reservations, include The Center’s “Business ExtrAA Account#: 527593.” You will still receive all your AA miles and The Center will earn airline tickets used to create vacation packages for silent auctions at our major events or to send staff to important trainings in different cities.
Flying somewhere?
Every time you book a ticket with American Airlines, remember to take The Center with you. When making your reservations, include The Center’s “Business ExtrAA Account#: 527593.” You will still receive all your AA miles and The Center will earn airline tickets used to create vacation packages for silent auctions at our major events or to send staff to important trainings in different cities.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Flip-Side To Oedipus
I'm not a fan of Freud and especially not of his proposed Oedipus Complex but in some form it seems to exist in contemporary psychology. The idea of competition of son with father for whatever reason and the "trauma" for both when the son comes into his own and finally succeeds/supersedes the father seems to continually appear in book after book on human relationships. Honestly I have never gone through this. I have never thought of myself in competition with my father in any way, shape, or form for anything.
Recent events have made me think though of a "flip-side" to Freud's idea. Again, it isn't anything new but I have not seen this type of comparison in the books I have read (perhaps because it is too folksy or too sentimental), but my flip-side is rather than thinking about competition between father and son, focus on the moment when the father expresses his joy for the type of man the son has become. Rather than traumatic and a source of familial tension this view creates bonding and strengthening of the familial unit.
OK, so why I am bringing this up? Today I received a card from my father. As some of you know (but most don't) modern medicine has pronounced my father's condition as terminal, metastasized cancer in several organs and lymph nodes. In the card is a very simple message. My father told me how much he loves me and how proud he is to have me for his son. Now this isn't the first time he has said it, but like most fathers the message had come when I have done something or if I was sad and full of self-hatred (a common condition of mine in the past). This time there was nothing I had done, nothing going on in my life which prompted him to take pen in hand and write that message to me. He wanted me to know, once more and under no special conditions or causes that he is proud to have me for his son. When I read that I felt like I had arrived, that while we disagree, while I have not been the "perfect son", even through the "gay thing", he loves me and he is proud to have me as his son (I know that has to sound redundant but I love writing it). Because someone I view as a real man said this to me I felt like a man.
Perhaps I am so happy to have this written confirmation because I love him and an proud to be his son, but I will save that for a later post.
Thank you Dad.
Recent events have made me think though of a "flip-side" to Freud's idea. Again, it isn't anything new but I have not seen this type of comparison in the books I have read (perhaps because it is too folksy or too sentimental), but my flip-side is rather than thinking about competition between father and son, focus on the moment when the father expresses his joy for the type of man the son has become. Rather than traumatic and a source of familial tension this view creates bonding and strengthening of the familial unit.
OK, so why I am bringing this up? Today I received a card from my father. As some of you know (but most don't) modern medicine has pronounced my father's condition as terminal, metastasized cancer in several organs and lymph nodes. In the card is a very simple message. My father told me how much he loves me and how proud he is to have me for his son. Now this isn't the first time he has said it, but like most fathers the message had come when I have done something or if I was sad and full of self-hatred (a common condition of mine in the past). This time there was nothing I had done, nothing going on in my life which prompted him to take pen in hand and write that message to me. He wanted me to know, once more and under no special conditions or causes that he is proud to have me for his son. When I read that I felt like I had arrived, that while we disagree, while I have not been the "perfect son", even through the "gay thing", he loves me and he is proud to have me as his son (I know that has to sound redundant but I love writing it). Because someone I view as a real man said this to me I felt like a man.
Perhaps I am so happy to have this written confirmation because I love him and an proud to be his son, but I will save that for a later post.
Thank you Dad.
I Coulda Been A Contender
Just pulled my "Motley Fools" CAPS rating for my stock picks where you select a basket of stocks and predict whether it will outperform or underperform the S&P 500 within a given timeframe. The lifetime results I have are:
tpape's rating is 96.75.
* Score: 193.88 (92nd percentile)
* Accuracy: 100.00% (99th percentile)
A member's rating indicates his percentile rank in CAPS. tpape is outperforming 96.75% of all CAPS members. A member's score is the total percentage return of all his picks subtracting out the S&P. A member's accuracy is how often that member has made correct predictions
So out of >65000 people I'm doing OK. :-)
tpape's rating is 96.75.
* Score: 193.88 (92nd percentile)
* Accuracy: 100.00% (99th percentile)
A member's rating indicates his percentile rank in CAPS. tpape is outperforming 96.75% of all CAPS members. A member's score is the total percentage return of all his picks subtracting out the S&P. A member's accuracy is how often that member has made correct predictions
So out of >65000 people I'm doing OK. :-)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Poor Paul Krugman
Give a guy a Nobel Prize and they think they can say anything and get away with it as we "mere mortals" should not question their pronouncements. Take the following from his editorial The era of good government appearing in the San Diego Union Tribune on 27-December-2008. Consider the following opening from the article:
... President-elect Barack Obama, riding a wave of revulsion over what conservatism has wrought, has said that he wants to "make government cool again."
What conservatism has wrought? What the heck is he talking about? As I have said time and time again on this site (and other conservatives have said before I started writing) President Bush is not a conservative. A conservative would not have done 3/4th of the things that he and his cabinet have done over the last eight years. But while Mr. Krugman doesn't name President Bush in the opening as the culprit (he does later in the article though which we will address in a moment), he says that conservatism is to blame. Mr. Krugman, please tell me how the conservative ideology is to blame when there hasn't been a conservative in power or a real conservative majority in over a decade. We have had Republicans in power in some way, shape, or form but not conservatives. For someone supposedly as smart as Mr. Krugman this is a terrible mistake to make... but of course it's not a mistake since Mr. Krugman is simply a "liberal" who is also a hack when it comes to trying to write about politics. As people who pay attention know, Republican does not equal conservative (just as Democrat does not equal liberal).
Now what about his attempted smearing of President Bush? Mr. Krugman says
Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can't do anything right.
Really? What "anti-government" ideology? Bush does not have an anti-government ideology. Sure, he has given a few speeches, but look at all the expanded government crap that Bush hath wrought (just for a few consider the massive drug program for Medicaid, "No Child Left Behind", and the current trillion-dollar plus "bailout"). Let's see Obama top THAT for expansion of government power and spending!
So Mr. Krugman, for a Nobel Prize winning economist and supposed "intellectual" (according to Wikipedia) please, please start getting your terms right. Such a supposedly smart man should not be making such mistakes.
... President-elect Barack Obama, riding a wave of revulsion over what conservatism has wrought, has said that he wants to "make government cool again."
What conservatism has wrought? What the heck is he talking about? As I have said time and time again on this site (and other conservatives have said before I started writing) President Bush is not a conservative. A conservative would not have done 3/4th of the things that he and his cabinet have done over the last eight years. But while Mr. Krugman doesn't name President Bush in the opening as the culprit (he does later in the article though which we will address in a moment), he says that conservatism is to blame. Mr. Krugman, please tell me how the conservative ideology is to blame when there hasn't been a conservative in power or a real conservative majority in over a decade. We have had Republicans in power in some way, shape, or form but not conservatives. For someone supposedly as smart as Mr. Krugman this is a terrible mistake to make... but of course it's not a mistake since Mr. Krugman is simply a "liberal" who is also a hack when it comes to trying to write about politics. As people who pay attention know, Republican does not equal conservative (just as Democrat does not equal liberal).
Now what about his attempted smearing of President Bush? Mr. Krugman says
Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can't do anything right.
Really? What "anti-government" ideology? Bush does not have an anti-government ideology. Sure, he has given a few speeches, but look at all the expanded government crap that Bush hath wrought (just for a few consider the massive drug program for Medicaid, "No Child Left Behind", and the current trillion-dollar plus "bailout"). Let's see Obama top THAT for expansion of government power and spending!
So Mr. Krugman, for a Nobel Prize winning economist and supposed "intellectual" (according to Wikipedia) please, please start getting your terms right. Such a supposedly smart man should not be making such mistakes.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Another Reason To Detest Elected Officials
As most of you know California is about to go over the financial waterfall into the abyss. Rather than face realities, what did the democrat majority conspire to do? The b*stards tried to call a tax a fee. That's right, they engaged in post-modern slight of hand. Why did they do this? In California, in order to increase a tax you need a 2/3 majority vote but with the current composition of the assembly they can't get it. They then realized that to increase a fee you need only a simple majority! With the swindler's mindset firmly in place here is how it went... they simply replaced a portion of the tax with a fee! Let's say you have a $1.00 tax. What they would do is say that they repeal 60 cents of this tax and replace it with a fee. Now to raise that "fee" they simply need a majority vote! So they put a .75% sales tax increase, er, fee increase, a 2.5% "surcharge" on income taxes, a fee on gasoline, a business fee, all to a vote and it passed in a straight party-line vote. Disgusting. All I can say is, thank God for the "Governator" who said he would not sign this package.
Evil... these people who supposedly represent the will of the people just try to find ways to circumvent the will of the people. Of course the greatest shame falls on the California voter for putting these jokers in power time and time again.
Evil... these people who supposedly represent the will of the people just try to find ways to circumvent the will of the people. Of course the greatest shame falls on the California voter for putting these jokers in power time and time again.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Clarence Page and Gay Rights
I have never liked Clarence Page, he's been too much of a sanctimonious liberal for me the entire duration of my political life, so my disagreement with his editorial in the 08-Dec-2008 edition of the San Diego Union Tribune isn't much of a shock, but it's just amazing how someone becomes so noted for writing virtually nothing. In the editorial Gay pride meets black prejudice Mr. Page opens with the following:
'Gay is the New Black,' declares the Dec 16 issue of The Advocate, a leading gay-oriented magazine. Well, not quite. How about "Gay is the new gray"?... I don't oppose same-sex marriage... But gay rights leaders should think twice before drawing too many compaisons to the right for racial equality. They are tragically correct to point out the murder, beatings, arson and other hate crimes that continue to be perpetrated against homosexuals. But the history and nature of our oppression is so different as to serve to alienate potential allies instead of winning them over.
Luckily I have that issue of The Advocate Mr. Page references. What is interesting is after opening with the above salvo he goes on to show two things. First, at best he skimmed the article, and second, he says nothing at all about why gay rights leaders need to think twice about making the comparison. In fact, as to the depths of his reading the article, when you do examine the contents of Michael Gross' article (titled "Pride and Prejudice", not "Gay is the New Black" which is on the cover of the 16-Dec-2008 issue of The Advocate), you almost get the sense that Mr Page simply lifted what he liked from the article and attacked the title, but the attack he proposed has virtually no substance in his editorial. In fact, had he bothered at all to read for content rather than skim for quotes he would have found Mr. Gross making the following statement:
Too many drew a simple parallel between our struggle and the black civil rights movement... There is someting to this, but it's dangerous territory, and we have to be careful not to lose our bearings here. Gay is the new black in only one meaningful way. At present we are the most socially acceptable targets for the kind of casual hatred that American society once approved for habitual use against black people... The comaprison becomes useful, though, in forcing us to consider the differences, between our civil rights struggle and theirs.
And I am sure that had Mr. Page read the article he would have liked the following penned by Mr. Gross:
Our oppression, by and large, is nowhere near as extreme as blacks' and we insult them when we make facile comparisons between our plights. Gay people have more resources thank blacks had in the 1960s. We are embedded in the power structure of every institution of this society.. Almost all gay people have the choice of passing [for straight]. Very few black people have that option.
* sigh *
Page's simple rendering of the the issue surfaces in his indignation of not only the comparison of gay rights and the Black civil rights movement (which if he had actually read the article he would have seen that was not the intent), but also that pointing out 70% of the black community voted for Proposition 8 which stripped away the right of gays to marry is mean spirited and a "bum rap". Now he does note that Mr. Gross says the same thing (wow, what a guy) but the sad thing is what typically happens when a liberal commentator writes about statistics... they speak about things of which they have no knowledge. In an effort to be politically correct both Mr. Page and Mr. Gross try to dance around the fact that ethincally blacks voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8. So what if they are only 10% of the voting electorate, if they had voted in the same percentage as Whites or Asians (less than 50% of those blocks voted for for the proposition) Proposition 8 would have failed (after all it passed by a 52/48 vote so if Blacks voted for it less than 50% that two percentage point swing in the overall population would have been enough). Trying to make comparisons with how Mormons or Catholics or Evangelicals voted is a false comparison (especially evangelicals since ethnicity and religion here probably overlaps quite a bit and the percentage fact is focusing on race rather than religion or any other factor).
So the fact remains... 70% of people in the black community voted for Proposition 8. Now the question to ask is "Why?" I am sure that most gays had a false sense of security given the Obama affect as well as the usual support for what is often considered liberal causes (though I think a strong conservative case can be made for gay marriage), I was saying early on not to do this. Most people who have studied sociology know that there does run through the black (and hispanic community)of social conservatism (more aptly called perhaps traditionalism). Both Mr. Page and Mr. Gross point this out and use it to attack the statistic but rather than attacking the statistic with it we need to address this. Rather than dancing around the percentage of blacks voting against gay marriage we need to address their underlying reasons. If we can tie our issue to that of civil rights (and it is because civil rights means "everyone's right" or "the rights of the public"), we have the opportunity to swing the percentage around... and that is what politics has become, a game of percentages.
'Gay is the New Black,' declares the Dec 16 issue of The Advocate, a leading gay-oriented magazine. Well, not quite. How about "Gay is the new gray"?... I don't oppose same-sex marriage... But gay rights leaders should think twice before drawing too many compaisons to the right for racial equality. They are tragically correct to point out the murder, beatings, arson and other hate crimes that continue to be perpetrated against homosexuals. But the history and nature of our oppression is so different as to serve to alienate potential allies instead of winning them over.
Luckily I have that issue of The Advocate Mr. Page references. What is interesting is after opening with the above salvo he goes on to show two things. First, at best he skimmed the article, and second, he says nothing at all about why gay rights leaders need to think twice about making the comparison. In fact, as to the depths of his reading the article, when you do examine the contents of Michael Gross' article (titled "Pride and Prejudice", not "Gay is the New Black" which is on the cover of the 16-Dec-2008 issue of The Advocate), you almost get the sense that Mr Page simply lifted what he liked from the article and attacked the title, but the attack he proposed has virtually no substance in his editorial. In fact, had he bothered at all to read for content rather than skim for quotes he would have found Mr. Gross making the following statement:
Too many drew a simple parallel between our struggle and the black civil rights movement... There is someting to this, but it's dangerous territory, and we have to be careful not to lose our bearings here. Gay is the new black in only one meaningful way. At present we are the most socially acceptable targets for the kind of casual hatred that American society once approved for habitual use against black people... The comaprison becomes useful, though, in forcing us to consider the differences, between our civil rights struggle and theirs.
And I am sure that had Mr. Page read the article he would have liked the following penned by Mr. Gross:
Our oppression, by and large, is nowhere near as extreme as blacks' and we insult them when we make facile comparisons between our plights. Gay people have more resources thank blacks had in the 1960s. We are embedded in the power structure of every institution of this society.. Almost all gay people have the choice of passing [for straight]. Very few black people have that option.
* sigh *
Page's simple rendering of the the issue surfaces in his indignation of not only the comparison of gay rights and the Black civil rights movement (which if he had actually read the article he would have seen that was not the intent), but also that pointing out 70% of the black community voted for Proposition 8 which stripped away the right of gays to marry is mean spirited and a "bum rap". Now he does note that Mr. Gross says the same thing (wow, what a guy) but the sad thing is what typically happens when a liberal commentator writes about statistics... they speak about things of which they have no knowledge. In an effort to be politically correct both Mr. Page and Mr. Gross try to dance around the fact that ethincally blacks voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8. So what if they are only 10% of the voting electorate, if they had voted in the same percentage as Whites or Asians (less than 50% of those blocks voted for for the proposition) Proposition 8 would have failed (after all it passed by a 52/48 vote so if Blacks voted for it less than 50% that two percentage point swing in the overall population would have been enough). Trying to make comparisons with how Mormons or Catholics or Evangelicals voted is a false comparison (especially evangelicals since ethnicity and religion here probably overlaps quite a bit and the percentage fact is focusing on race rather than religion or any other factor).
So the fact remains... 70% of people in the black community voted for Proposition 8. Now the question to ask is "Why?" I am sure that most gays had a false sense of security given the Obama affect as well as the usual support for what is often considered liberal causes (though I think a strong conservative case can be made for gay marriage), I was saying early on not to do this. Most people who have studied sociology know that there does run through the black (and hispanic community)of social conservatism (more aptly called perhaps traditionalism). Both Mr. Page and Mr. Gross point this out and use it to attack the statistic but rather than attacking the statistic with it we need to address this. Rather than dancing around the percentage of blacks voting against gay marriage we need to address their underlying reasons. If we can tie our issue to that of civil rights (and it is because civil rights means "everyone's right" or "the rights of the public"), we have the opportunity to swing the percentage around... and that is what politics has become, a game of percentages.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Everyone Can Give Something
This morning I was listening to KFI and my heart was breaking. The station is doing a Radiothon for the Salvation Army. Donations are off from last year and service requests have nearly tripled due to the situation out there. Bill Handel was telling people just give up Starbucks for one day and donate the money and that anyone, regardless of how bad off you think you are, can donate something whether it is time, goods, or money. So acting on both good conservative principles (individuals give to help other individuals) and in some part in answer to a bit of a guilty conscious (thanks Mr. Handel) I upped my giving to a couple of local charities. Now I know I am blessed in so many ways and can do this, but if you can't that does not exempt you. Maybe you can help a friend or neighbor having a hard time, maybe you can take a couple of cans of food to a local food bank or donate time at a shelter... but you can do something to help people less fortunate than you. If we all did this, if we got off our behinds and did something no matter how small and tell ourselves "This is for those less fortunate than I am" just think of how much better off the world would be.
Just to help, here are some links to some of my favorites at this time of the year (and you don't even have to search the site as these links take you right to the donate page):
National:
Salvation Army
Feeding America
Children's Health Fund
San Diego:
Mama's Kitchen
And one for you east-side Missouri folks:
St. Louis Foodbank
Just to help, here are some links to some of my favorites at this time of the year (and you don't even have to search the site as these links take you right to the donate page):
National:
Salvation Army
Feeding America
Children's Health Fund
San Diego:
Mama's Kitchen
And one for you east-side Missouri folks:
St. Louis Foodbank
Friday, December 05, 2008
Words From Yeats
One of the benefits of being educated in a small, Midwest high school was being made to read and memorize famous works of literature. With all that has been happening in the news I am reminded of the following lines written by Yeats in his famous poem The Second Coming:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
How Much Does It Take To Buy The Presidency?
And here people worried about Ross Perot back in 1992. You can read the full story here.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama, who rewrote the book on presidential fundraising, amassed more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain.
In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day. It was his second biggest fundraising period and a fitting coda to a successful presidential bid that shattered fundraising records.
In the end, Obama still had $30 million left over.
Overall, Obama exceeded the combined finances of the two major parties' nominees four years ago. George W. Bush and John Kerry pulled in a total of $653 million in the 2004 primary and general election campaigns, including federal public financing money.
Of course, this was the man who repeatedly said that if his rival took federal funds so would he. First promise he broke... and no wonder.
WASHINGTON – Barack Obama, who rewrote the book on presidential fundraising, amassed more than $745 million during his marathon campaign, more than twice the amount obtained by his rival, Republican John McCain.
In his latest finance report, Obama reported raising $104 million in more than five weeks immediately before and after Election Day. It was his second biggest fundraising period and a fitting coda to a successful presidential bid that shattered fundraising records.
In the end, Obama still had $30 million left over.
Overall, Obama exceeded the combined finances of the two major parties' nominees four years ago. George W. Bush and John Kerry pulled in a total of $653 million in the 2004 primary and general election campaigns, including federal public financing money.
Of course, this was the man who repeatedly said that if his rival took federal funds so would he. First promise he broke... and no wonder.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
World AIDS Day
Today marks the 20th World AIDS Day... how many of you knew that? How many of you cared? I am old enough to remember, and participating in those early years of the fight. It's strange to look back at what we did then compared to the attitudes of today.
Tonight I have my own little memorial service. A glass of wine and some 15 year old picture of a young, smiling blond man I had in my life for a few years before he fell to the opportunistic diseases that is often the end of too-short life. Jerry Heard came out when he was 17 and had his first sexual encounter... six months later he tested positivie for the HIV virus. I met him right after I moved to St. Louis. We were part of a large group who met to see a local production of "Pippin" and have dinner afterward. He sat at the opposite end of the table from me but he kept looking at me and whispering to his friend. After a few awkward dates we decided to make a go of it. He was always up front with his disease and told me that if at any time I wanted out he understood (he said that was why most men didn't hang around him). I didn't leave. When his health was in steep decline I asked him what he wanted more than anything else... he said to be married. We were, if not in the eyes of any government we were in our eyes and our hearts. I was with him when he died, holding him in my arms. He was 25.
So today, as I have entered a relatively new chapter in my life, on this 20th annual World AIDS DAY I am thinking of how HIV has impacted my life. I am sure many of you have more stories you can add to mine. What we have to remember is that the fight is NOT over. There is no vaccine, there is no cure. We have no solid evidence that long-term application of the new drug "cocktails" (with apologies to Larry Kramer who says that cocktails are supposed to make you feel good while his HIV cocktails gives him severe intestinal problems) can be tolerated and while in the short term a better quality of life exists, after almost 30 years of it being out in the open we still have not beaten this enemy.
Tonight I have my own little memorial service. A glass of wine and some 15 year old picture of a young, smiling blond man I had in my life for a few years before he fell to the opportunistic diseases that is often the end of too-short life. Jerry Heard came out when he was 17 and had his first sexual encounter... six months later he tested positivie for the HIV virus. I met him right after I moved to St. Louis. We were part of a large group who met to see a local production of "Pippin" and have dinner afterward. He sat at the opposite end of the table from me but he kept looking at me and whispering to his friend. After a few awkward dates we decided to make a go of it. He was always up front with his disease and told me that if at any time I wanted out he understood (he said that was why most men didn't hang around him). I didn't leave. When his health was in steep decline I asked him what he wanted more than anything else... he said to be married. We were, if not in the eyes of any government we were in our eyes and our hearts. I was with him when he died, holding him in my arms. He was 25.
So today, as I have entered a relatively new chapter in my life, on this 20th annual World AIDS DAY I am thinking of how HIV has impacted my life. I am sure many of you have more stories you can add to mine. What we have to remember is that the fight is NOT over. There is no vaccine, there is no cure. We have no solid evidence that long-term application of the new drug "cocktails" (with apologies to Larry Kramer who says that cocktails are supposed to make you feel good while his HIV cocktails gives him severe intestinal problems) can be tolerated and while in the short term a better quality of life exists, after almost 30 years of it being out in the open we still have not beaten this enemy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)